IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CASS COUNTY, MISSOURI AT HARRISONVILLE SUSAN EDMONSOND, Plaintiff, v. Case No. CASS COUNTY, MISSOURI JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Serve Clerk of the County Commission: 102 East Wall Street Harrisonville, MO 64701 and CASS COUNTY, MISSOURI TREASURER, Steve Cheslik, in his official capacity, Serve at place of employment: 102 East Wall Street Harrisonville, MO 64701 and CASS COUNTY AUDITOR, Ryan Wescoat, in his official and individual capacities, Serve at place of employment: 102 East Wall Street Harrisonville, MO 64701 Defendants. 17CA-CC00266 PETITION FOR DAMAGES COMES NOW Plaintiff Susan Edmonsond, by and through her attorneys of record, and for her Petition against the above-named Defendants, states and alleges the following: 1
INTRODUCTION 1. The claims in this Petition arise out of Plaintiff s employment relationship with Defendants. 2. In violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act ( MHRA, Plaintiff was subjected to unlawful sex/pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation for her complaints of discrimination. 3. Plaintiff seeks all relief available under the MHRA, including but not limited to compensatory and punitive damages. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Susan Edmonsond is now, and was at all times relevant to the allegations in this Petition, a female resident and citizen of Cass County, Missouri. 5. Defendant Cass County, Missouri is a municipality within the State of Missouri, and which was Plaintiff s employer at all times relevant to this lawsuit, and which further employs the Cass County Treasurer, the Cass County Auditor, and the personnel within the Cass County Treasurer s and Auditor s offices. 6. Defendant Cass County, Missouri is a political or civil subdivision of the State of Missouri. 7. At all times relevant to the facts alleged herein, Cass County, Missouri employed more than six persons in the State of Missouri. 8. Defendant Cass County, Missouri, is a Missouri municipality which acts through agents, including the Cass County Treasurer and Cass County Auditor. It is liable for the conduct of its agents acting within the course and scope of their agency, its own negligence, the acts of its agents which it knowingly ratifies, injuries incurred by agents performance of its non-delegable duties, acts done by agents for which the 2
agency relationship allows or assists the agent to perform, and acts its agents take by virtue of their position with Defendant. 9. Defendant Cass County, Missouri is the legal and functional equivalent of Defendant Cass County Treasurer and Defendant Cass County Auditor and their respective offices/departments within the County. 10. Defendant Cass County Treasurer, in his official capacity, is the Treasurer of Defendant Cass County, Missouri, and responsible for managing the Cass County checking account, investing money on behalf of the County, informing Commissioners of the County s financial status on a regular basis, and administering payroll for the county s approximately 250 employees. 11. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, the Cass County Treasurer was an employer of Plaintiff under the MHRA because the Treasurer acted directly in the interest of Cass County, Missouri. 12. The Cass County Treasurer is the payor on Plaintiff s payroll checks from employer Cass County, Missouri. 13. The Cass County Treasurer, in his official capacity in the course and scope of his employment with Cass County, Missouri, administered pay to Plaintiff in a discriminatory manner as alleged herein. 14. Defendant Cass County Auditor, Ryan Wescoat is and was at all times relevant to the allegations herein, the Auditor of Defendant Cass County, Missouri. 15. Mr. Wescoat was Plaintiff s direct supervisor with employer Cass County, Missouri. Mr. Wescoat s job duties included but were not limited to managing the office of the County Auditor s department, coordinating with the Cass County Commission and other county departments, hiring and firing staff within the office of the County 3
Auditor s department, managing and procuring supplies, and ensuring County compliance with selected state statutes and local policies. 16. Mr. Wescoat had the authority to hire, fire, and discipline employees within the Auditor s office, including Plaintiff. 17. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Mr. Wescoat was an employer under the MHRA because he was directly acting in the interests of Defendant Cass County, Missouri. 18. Mr. Wescoat, while acting within the course and scope of his employment with Cass County and/or individually, discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff as alleged herein, and ultimately terminated Plaintiff s employment. 19. A substantial identify of interest exists among Defendant Cass County, Missouri, and Defendants Cass County Treasurer, Steve Cheslik, and Cass County Auditor, Ryan Wescoat, including that these defendants share control over the business and operations, including personnel matters, of Cass County, Missouri, and on information and belief, have a common source of management related to the allegations herein in that the Cass County Treasurer s and Auditor s offices are departments of Cass County, Missouri. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. Plaintiff s first injury and multiple discriminatory acts complained of herein occurred in Cass County, Missouri, making this Court an appropriate forum. 21. Defendants Cass County is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court because it is a municipality which does ongoing, continuous, and substantial business in and for Cass County, Missouri. 22. Defendant Cass County Treasurer is subject to personal jurisdiction in this 4
Court because he holds an official office in Cass County, Missouri, in which he does ongoing, continuous, and substantial business in and on behalf of Cass County, Missouri. 23. Defendant Cass County Auditor is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court because he holds an official office in Cass County, Missouri, in which he does ongoing, continuous, and substantial business in and on behalf of Cass County, Missouri. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 24. On February 7, 2017, Plaintiff timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights ( MCHR alleging sex discrimination and retaliations by the defendants. The Charge was assigned the number E-02/17-47731; 28E-2017-00584C. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference. 25. On August 25, 2017, the MCHR issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue based on Charge number E-02/17-47731; 28E-2017-00584C. A copy of the Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein by reference. 26. This action has been timely filed with this Court, and Plaintiff has met all conditions precedent to filing this action. 27. No defendant filed a petition with any Court in Missouri challenging the MCHR s issuance of the Notice of Right to Sue attached as Exhibit B. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 28. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Cass County, Missouri, for 5
approximately two years as Deputy Auditor. 29. Plaintiff s employment with the County began on or about January 1, 2015. 30. In May 2016, Plaintiff learned she was pregnant and so informed her supervisor, Ryan Wescoat. 31. Plaintiff, while planning ahead for her maternity leave, asked Mr. Wescoat about FMLA leave and the sick leave pool which are typically used to cover employees maternity leave. 32. Mr. Wescoat told Plaintiff that her leave of absence and use of time from the sick leave pool would negatively affect the county s budget, suggesting she could not use such leave. 33. Plaintiff also inquired with Human Resources about utilizing the sick leave pool for maternity leave. 34. Human Resources warned Plaintiff that her supervisor, Mr. Wescoat, would fight [her] on the issue. 35. Shortly thereafter, the Cass County Commission changed the county s leave policy so that days from the sick leave pool could not be applied toward maternity leave. 36. Plaintiff s supervisor, Mr. Wescoat, was good friends with the Cass County Commissioner and, based on information and belief, influenced the change in policy. 37. Despite the policy change, Plaintiff was ultimately able to use days from the sick leave pool in addition to FMLA leave and paid time off, for her maternity leave. 38. Plaintiff took maternity leave starting in September 2016 and returned to work a few weeks later, on or about November 1, 2016. 6
39. When Plaintiff returned to work, it was agreed that she could work modified hours. 40. Plaintiff was an exempt, salaried employee. 41. Defendants thereafter reduced Plaintiff s pay for working a modified schedule, even though she continued to work full time hours. 42. On her modified schedule, Plaintiff merely had a different start and end time compared to colleagues. 43. Moreover, Plaintiff was not offered a lunch break while other county employees were permitted two fifteen-minute breaks and a thirty-minute lunch break (though often, other employees took one full hour for lunch. 44. Previously, while Plaintiff was campaigning for the school board at the recommendation of Mr. Wescoat and shortly before her maternity leave, Plaintiff worked modified hours but her pay was not reduced at that time. 45. Additionally, after returning from maternity leave, Plaintiff s supervisor, Mr. Wescoat, treated her differently in that he acted coldly toward her and was unfairly critical of her work. 46. Plaintiff is aware of a former co-worker with the County, who had not been pregnant or taken maternity leave, who worked a reduced schedule temporarily due to mechanical issues with her car, and on information and belief, the co-worker s pay was not reduced accordingly. 47. On or about November 28, 2016, Plaintiff complained to Mr. Wescoat that she felt she was being treated unfairly and discriminated against. 7
48. Plaintiff also complained to Human Resources shortly thereafter, on or about December 2, 2016, about the discriminatory treatment to which she had been subjected. 49. Plaintiff complained to Human Resources (and specifically, Michele Phillips at least twice about the discriminatory treatment to which she was subjected, with the first complaint occurring shortly after her maternity leave on or about December 2, 2016, and the second complaint occurring shortly thereafter in December 2016. 50. On or about December 13, 2016, Plaintiff complained again to Mr. Wescoat regarding discriminatory treatment and unfair pay. 51. Based on information and belief, Defendants failed to perform an investigation into Plaintiff s allegations of discrimination. 52. Defendants failed to take prompt and effective remedial actions to address Plaintiff s complaints of discrimination. 53. Plaintiff informed HR that she intended to contact the EEOC about the discriminatory conduct to which she was subjected. 54. Thereafter, Mr. Wescoat, and the HR employee to whom Plaintiff complained, terminated Plaintiff s employment, on or about January 3, 2017. 55. Defendants purported reason for Plaintiff s termination was that a complaint was allegedly made against her. 56. The person who made the alleged complaint, Derek Moorhead, was good friends with Mr. Wescoat. 57. Plaintiff first learned of the alleged complaint at the time of her termination. 8
58. Defendants did not ask Plaintiff any questions about Mr. Moorhead s complaint or allow Plaintiff to explain why the complaint was false, before terminating her employment. 59. The alleged complaint was a false, contrived, pretextual reason for terminating Plaintiff s employment when in reality, Defendants sought to terminate Plaintiff s employment for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons. 60. The true reasons for Plaintiff s termination were discrimination based on her sex and pregnancy, and in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination. 61. As another example of the sex discrimination to which Plaintiff was subjected, Mr. Moorhead, a male, then the Chief Deputy Auditor, was allowed to work less hours than Plaintiff, yet on information and belief, was paid at least the same annual salary as Plaintiff. 62. Defendant Cass County Treasurer is listed as the payor on Plaintiff s paychecks. The Treasurer therefore was involved in issuing or administering compensation to Plaintiff in a discriminatory manner as compared to her similarly situated colleague, Mr. Moorhead. 63. As a result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has experienced and will continue to experience lost wages and emotional distress. 64. At all times relevant to the allegations in this Petition, the individuals alleged to have engaged in any wrongdoing or unlawful activity were agents, servants and/or employees of Defendants, and/or were at all such times directly acting in the interests of Defendants, and/or was acting within the scope and course of their agency and employment, making Defendants vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 9
65. Alternatively, Defendants ratified the actions or misconduct alleged herein, making Defendant vicariously liable for such actions. COUNT I MHRA R.S.Mo. 213.055 Sex/Pregnancy Discrimination (against All Defendants 66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in every other paragraph set forth in this Petition as though fully stated in this paragraph. 67. Plaintiff is female employee who was pregnant while employed with Defendants and who utilized maternity leave. 68. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex and pregnancy in the terms, conditions, compensation, and privileges of her employment, in ways including but not limited to: reducing Plaintiff s pay, issuing Plaintiff unfair compensation, failing and refusing to investigate and remedy Plaintiff s complaints of discrimination, telling Plaintiff a false alleged complaint had been made against her, generally treating Plaintiff unfairly and with hostility, and terminating her employment. 69. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff and generally subjected her to unfair treatment in the terms, conditions, and/or privileges of her employment due to her sex and pregnancy. 70. Defendants knew or should have known of the discrimination to which Plaintiff was subjected, because Mr. Wescoat personally engaged in the discrimination and Plaintiff complained of the discrimination to him and Human Resources. 71. Defendants engaged in unfair treatment and discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, compensation, and/or privileges of her employment due to her sex/gender. 10
72. Defendants failed to make good-faith efforts to enforce policies to prevent discrimination against its employees, including Plaintiff. 73. Defendants failed to take prompt remedial measures to correct the discrimination. 74. The comments and conduct adversely impacted the terms, conditions, compensation, and privileges of Plaintiff s employment because Plaintiff was denied her right to work in an employment environment free from discriminatory treatment, and because the conduct described herein unnecessarily interfered with Plaintiff s ability to perform her job. 75. The conduct described herein has caused Plaintiff to suffer lost wages and emotional distress. 76. The actions and conduct set forth herein were outrageous and showed an evil motive or demonstrated a reckless indifference or conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and others. Therefore, Defendants are liable for punitive damages to punish Defendants and to discourage others from engaging in similar unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants on Count I of her Petition, for a finding that she has been subjected to unlawful conduct prohibited by R.S.Mo. 213.055 et seq., for an award of compensatory and punitive damages, for her costs expended, for reasonable attorneys' fees, and for any further relief the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II MHRA R.S.Mo. 213.070 Retaliation (Against All Defendants 77. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in every other paragraph set 11
forth in this Petition. 78. Plaintiff is a person. 79. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by opposing and reporting, in good faith, what she reasonably believes to be unlawful discrimination. 80. Defendants knew Plaintiff engaged in protected activity, as alleged herein. 81. Defendants committed acts of reprisal against Plaintiff. 82. The acts of reprisal committed against Plaintiff included, but were not limited to: reducing Plaintiff s pay, failing and refusing to investigate and remedy Plaintiff s complaints of discrimination, telling her a false alleged complaint had been made against her, generally treating her unfairly and with hostility, and terminating her employment. 83. Defendants engaged in acts of reprisal against Plaintiff due to Plaintiff s protected activities. 84. The conduct described herein caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff damages, including but not limited to lost wages and emotional distress. 85. The actions and conduct set forth herein were outrageous and showed an evil motive or demonstrated a reckless indifference or conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and others. Therefore, Defendants are liable for punitive damages, to punish Defendants and to discourage others from engaging in similar unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants on Count II of her Petition, for a finding that she has been subjected to unlawful conduct prohibited by R.S.Mo. 213.070 et seq., for an award of compensatory and punitive damages, for her costs expended, for reasonable attorneys' fees, and for any further relief the Court deems just and proper. 12
JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all counts alleged herein. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, HOLMAN SCHIAVONE By: Kathleen E. Mannion Anne Schiavone, MO Bar #49349 Kathleen E. Mannion, MO Bar #63993 4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 810 Kansas City, Missouri 64112 Telephone: 816.283.8738 Facsimile: 816.283.8739 Email: aschiavone@hslawllc.com Email: kmannion@hslawllc.com 13